The Barack Obama Phenomenon || Senator Barack Obama and Immigration Reform

Senator Barack Obama and Immigration ReformAuthor(s): Margaret E. Dorsey and Miguel Díaz-BarrigaSource: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, The Barack Obama Phenomenon (Sep., 2007),pp. 90-104Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40034404 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of BlackStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.12 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:12:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40034404?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Senator Barack Obama and Immigration Reform Margaret E. Dorsey University of Pennsylvania Miguel Diaz-Barriga Swarthmore College

Journal of Black Studies Volume 38 Number 1

September 2007 90-104 © 2007 Sags Publications

10. 1 177/0021934707304960 http;#jbs,sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Senator Barack Obama played a key role in supporting bipartisan efforts led by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy to legislate "comprehensive immigration reform." This new legislation calls for augmenting border security, enforcing employer sanctions for firms that hire "undocumented workers," and creating a path to "earned" citizenship for workers already in the United States. The authors argue that Senator Obama uses a "both . . . and" rather than an "either . . . or" approach to immigration that seeks to shift the terms of the debate. In this article, the authors chart Senator Obama's stance on immigration in relation to conservative and liberal positions. By doing so, they explore how Obama's constructed understanding of "earned" citizenship stands in sharp contrast to ultraconservatives' essentialized notion of "patriotic" citizenship.

Keywords: Obama; immigration; citizenship; communication; anthropology; politics

Barack Obama's political vision borrows from many key tropes found in U.S. politics, ranging from talk of "the American dream" to

that of "a nation of immigrants."1 His immigration policy centers on the notion of "earned citizenship": a view, on one hand, that many Democrats and Republicans, including President Bush, share. For proponents of earned citizenship in both parties, "undocumented immigrants" in the United States deserve the opportunity to gain citizenship if they meet certain criteria, which include proving that they are hard workers, paying a fine for breaking immigration laws, learning English, and passing a background check. Earned citizenship excludes granting amnesty to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States; instead it creates a "path" to citizenship.

90



Dorsey, Diaz-Barriga / Obama and Immigration 91

In both parties, on the other hand, we find opposition to granting any type of citizenship to undocumented immigrants. Senator Obama's position on earned citizenship thus represents a potential campaign stumbling block. His method to overcome that obstacle, on this central campaign issue, appears to manifest in a cogent articulation of his position in the context of tightening U.S. -Mexico border security.

We critically think through his idea of earned citizenship by examining the assumptions about citizenship that fuel the immigration debate. For Senator Obama, earned citizenship revolves around participation in the labor force; acquiring and maintaining a job are central facets. Scholars of transnationalism and citizenship, such as Aihwa Ong (1999), might see this position as an extension of an econometric logic into all realms of social life and scrutinize the conflation of citizenship with participation in the market. It would be a mistake, however, to reduce Senator Obama's views on earned citizenship to just another instantiation of neoliberalism in that he also views civic virtue as key to citizenship. This "both . . . and" rather than "either . . . or" approach is becoming a hallmark of the senator's campaign. In this case, citizenship is both participation in the market and civic life.

Many ultraconservatives2 do not share Senator Obama's views on citizenship. They see citizenship as vastly more than planting a tree on Earth Day. It extends beyond moderate conservatives' much heralded "free trade": applying the logic of the market to that of democracy (which ultraconservatives robustly criticize). Rather, ultraconservatives promulgate an emotionally based "patriotic citizenship." Such different conceptions of citizenship, we argue, will form one of the principal axes of debate over immigration policy.

Another axis is the often unstated, but omnipresent, issue of cultural assimilation and belonging. Latino/a scholars (Flores & Benmayor, 1997; Rosaldo, 1993) envision citizenship in terms of legal status and an individ- ual's contribution to the cultural production of what it means to be a citizen. Their incarnation of cultural citizenship suggests that we need to explore cultural expression and hybridity as key elements of citizenship. Neither moderate conservatives nor moderate liberals celebrate that understanding of the positive effects of cultural difference on citizenship. Rather, both groups view cultural difference as a problem to be solved, and, in fact, this shared identification of assimilation as a useful solution to that problem brings Obama closer to conservatives. In this article, we explore conservative and liberal views of citizenship to elucidate just these contrasts and nuances.



92 Journal of Black Studies

Conservative Voices

Ultraconservative views, from organizations such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and pundits such as Pat Buchanan, focus attention on immigrants coming from the U.S. -Mexico border. Their frequent use of the label "our southern border" draws attention to immigration from Mexico. They see the Minutemen, with their extragovernmental monitoring of immigrants, as moving in the right direction. As Pat Buchanan (2007) noted in a recent MSNBC interview, they favor "stop[ping] criminals" from entering the United States.

The goals of the ultraconservative program include ending "illegal" immigration through "tough border enforcement" and abolishing legal immigration or, at the very least, reducing the number of legal immigrants to 300,000 a year. They oppose amnesty and guest-worker programs, but they support protecting the wages of U.S. citizens and harshly penalizing employers who hire "illegals" (Federation for American Immigration Reform, n.d.-b). For them "illegal immigrants" pose a threat to the rule of U.S. law and take jobs from U.S. citizens.

Ultraconservatives characterize the U.S.-Mexico border as "porous," allowing "floods" and unaccountable "waves" of people to seep into the United States. They portray the situation as an "out-of-control" "emer- gency" in need of instant attention and constant vigilance, with immigrants "diluting" U.S. culture and taxing our infrastructure. In addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Interstate 69 (1-69) cor- ridor3 imperil U.S. sovereignty and serve the interests of big business. The watery metaphors of floods and waves seem to construct an image of cultural and political erosion that will ultimately lead to social chaos and a weakening of the U.S. state.

For ultraconservative groups such as the CIS, the "multicultural" nature of U.S. education, high immigration rates, the ability of communication technology to keep transnational families close together, and the proximity of Mexico to the United States fuel their skepticism about the ability of Latino/as to assimilate. The CIS (n.d.-a) views itself as "animated by a proimmigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."4 For those few admitted, however, citizenship should be more than "speaking English and having a job"; it is more than culture; it is beyond assimilation; it is not objectifiable, not ver- ifiable, not even something one can count. Rather, citizenship comes from our essence, from our emotional core:




The development of a visceral, emotional attachment to America and its history, or "patriotic assimilation" is increasingly unlikely when the schools and the culture at large are skeptical, even hostile, to patriotism and when technology enables immigrants to maintain strong psychological and physical ties to their countries of origin. (Center for Immigration Studies, n.d.-b, italics added)

Perhaps Pat Buchanan (2006) put it most succinctly: "Democracy is not enough. If the culture dies, the country dies."

Ultraconservative groups such as FAIR criticize the ways in which free trade and immigration policies put the interests of big business before those of U.S. laborers. FAIR (n.d.-a) states,

[We] oppose international agreements that impair U.S. sovereign control over immigration and border management issues. One past example includes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which opened the flood gates and allowed big business to import cheap foreign labor en masse to take American jobs. A current example is the so-called NAFTA superhighway, the plan to create a 10-lane, limited-access highway running from Mexico to Canada.

This position against free trade agreements contradicts that of moderate conservatives, who view trade liberalization as key to maintaining American economic preeminence. For moderate conservatives, free trade connects to fundamental precepts behind U.S. notions of democracy and freedom. Ultraconservatives also raise this issue in relationship to African Americans' access to low-wage jobs. The CIS (n.d.-a), for example, calls for job training of African Americans as an alternative to relying on low- wage foreign labor.

Some, but not all, Republicans share these conservative perspectives on immigration. Issues ranging from providing undocumented migrants a path to citizenship, building a border fence, and the benefits of immigrant labor to the U.S. economy deeply divide moderate and conservative Republicans, according to a recent Pew survey (Doherty, 2007). An underlying difference in their perspectives is based on their evaluation of the impact of fair trade agreements and globalization on the U.S. economy. On the issue of immigration reform, moderate conservatives (e.g., President Bush) tend to favor opening our borders to free trade. Ultraconservatives, on the other hand, rally against just this issue, arguing that transnational trade agreements undermine "American" workers.




Liberal Voices

The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR) is an umbrella organization that includes many groups traditionally identified as taking a liberal stance toward immigration (e.g., the United Farm Workers of America, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund).5 The CCIR encompasses 16 state and local immigrant rights groups as well as 24 national-level organizations, including unions, religious groups, and a variety of ethnic organizations (e.g., Korean American, African American, Irish American).

The goal of the CCIR is to promote democracy through education, civic participation, and respect for human rights, while protecting national security. The CCIR calls for the reunification of families and for a path to citizenship for "undocumented workers" residing in the United States. This program underscores the importance of civil and human rights as well as restoring the rule of law - not merely as an enforcement issue - through devising "just" laws. Their approach to national security is to develop legal mechanisms through which immigrant workers can fill jobs:

[Legalizing immigration] will better enable the nation to know who is already here and who is coming in the future, and will bring our system back into line with our tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. (Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, 2005)

Finally, the CCIR emphasizes the protection of workers' rights, including guest workers. These rights specifically refer to migrants' freedom to change jobs, receive shelter provided by existing labor laws, and benefit from the implementation of a program for obtaining permanent status.

The CCIR portrays immigration as a global issue with firm roots in the foundation of the United States as a nation of immigrants who pursue the American dream. Immigrants embody model citizenship through their "strong work ethic" and "family values." Within this model, "undocumented" or "unauthorized migrants" are central to the economic well-being of the nation. For them, changes in immigration "flows" function as a response to shifts in the global economy.

The discourse of flows, economic growth, and the work ethic highlights the desirability of integrating immigrants into the mainstream of U.S. society, which ultimately leads to a strengthening of democracy in the United States. For the CCIR, education plays a key role in the construction of citizens. The CCIR calls for civic participation, a full commitment to




educating immigrants in English, and teaching them about "economic opportunity." For them, local communities also need to be involved in this educational commitment so that they can welcome immigrants and facilitate integration.

Offering a "realistic" framework for meeting U.S. labor needs and for integrating immigrants into U.S. society animates the CCIR. Turning immigrants into citizens, however, is neither a quick nor a one-stop occurrence. To "earn citizenship," one must complete a lengthy and rigorous process that includes the following: admit breaking the law, pay a fine, pay back taxes, pass a background check, and learn English. After immigrants apply, they need to work for 6 years in the United States and be "productive" and "hard" workers. For the CCIR, workers and immigrants alike are not implicitly or explicitly marked as "Mexican" or "Latin American." The visuals on their Web page, in fact, show people from a variety of countries.

In a statement on immigration reform, United Farm Workers president Arturo S. Rodriguez (2007) articulated the CCIR's view of earned citizenship as strengthening the United States:

This is the first step to provide earned legalization for our nation's immigrant community, including the thousands of hard-working farm workers who perform some of the most important and vital work for this country - feeding America and making us stronger.

Rodriguez's statement highlights a pathway to earned citizenship, found, for example, in his talk of "earned legalization." Liberal and moderate Democrats such as Senator Obama share this perspective on citizenship.

Although the CCIR's position seems to represent the views of most liberals, sharp divisions exist between liberal and moderate Democrats. According to a Pew survey, both liberal and moderate Democrats favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and recognize the ways in which immigrant labor contributes to the U.S. economy. Moderate Democrats, however, want to limit the number of immigrants who enter the United States and strongly support restrictive measures such as building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.6

Obama's Voices: "Both . . . And"

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson aptly characterized Senator Obama's political philosophy as "both . . . and" instead of "either . . . or." According to Robinson, Obama's position on alleviating urban poverty




both recognizes that poverty is the result of failed social and economic programs and calls for residents to take greater responsibility for their neighborhoods. Obama thus bridges the traditional divide between liberals, who call for reinvigorating social programs, and conservatives, who emphasize the need for reinforcing family values and the work ethic. This same political philosophy extends to immigration: Obama speaks for increased border enforcement and for the safety of those crossing the border. He asks that we both secure the U.S. -Mexico border and respect immigrants' rights.

We draw our data on Obama' s immigration position from a variety of sources: his best-selling book The Audacity of Hope (Obama, 2006a), a speech given at the University of New Hampshire (Obama, 2007), his floor statement on immigration in the U.S. Senate (Obama, 2006b), a transcript from an interview with political correspondent George Stephanopoulos of ABC News (Obama, 2006c), press releases and conferences related to the recently passed immigration legislation that he sponsored (Martinez, 2005; Obama, 2006c, 2006d), and his official campaign Web site (n.d.). On the basis of analysis of these data, we argue that Obama's immigration plat- form centers on three concepts: border security, employer accountability, and earned citizenship.

On border security, Obama proposes to increase the number of border agents and provide the border patrol with new technology and detention facilities so that the border patrol can more effectively detain and deport illegal immigrants. Concerning employer accountability, Obama (2007) calls for strict "fines and penalties" for employers who hire undocumented workers. He also supports using a tamper-proof identification card for ver- ifying U.S. citizenship. For undocumented immigrants in the United States, Obama calls for a realistic approach that involves a series of steps through which an immigrant can "earn" citizenship. These steps include paying a fine for crossing the border illegally, paying back taxes, passing a background check, learning English, and working hard for 6 years. His sugges- tion of earned citizenship and the process of earning it through a series of steps echoes that of the CCIR.

Although Obama's policy and proposals mirror those of the CCIR, the language he uses to depict the immigration "problem" harmonizes with conservative positions. Like conservatives, "porous border," "the wave," and "flooding our Southern border" all are images Obama (2006a, pp. 263-264) draws on to characterize Mexican immigration to the United States. When Obama speaks of undocumented immigration in the present context, he primarily speaks of Mexican immigration. Speaking with the voice of




"native-born Americans," Obama considers Mexican immigrants to be dis- tinct from previous immigrant groups who arrived. According to this inter- pretive axis, what distinguishes Mexican immigrants from, say, Irish, Polish, or Russian immigrants is that Mexican immigrants have not com- pletely "severed" their "linguistic and cultural" ties from their homeland because of proximity and technology, such as satellites and wire transfers. Obama elects to draw his audience's attention to the fact that Mexican immigrants remain closely tied to their homeland, and distant from other communities, primarily through language. Finally, Obama widely uses a discourse of legality, using concepts such as "illegal immigrants" and emphasizing the need for immigrants to show "respect for the law."

Obama's explanation that immigrants must be socialized into the common culture, purpose, and aspirations of U.S. Americans informs his use of conservative rhetoric. He mentions "assimilation" as being an ele- ment of citizenship: "Like other immigrants, they [Latinos] assimilated into the culture" (Obama, 2006a, p. 261). His use of assimilation fundamentally sets Obama apart from the CCIR, which does not highlight assimilation but rather integration: learning English, participating in civic life, and improv- ing one's economic condition. In short, unlike Obama, the CCIR avoids drawing attention to transnational cultural ties and cultural difference in favor of promoting civic virtue.

Obama's voting usually, but not always, aligns with the CCIR's view. For example, he voted in favor of the Hagel amendment, which denies a pathway for earned citizenship to undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for less than 5 years. In addition, some Latino/a leaders express dismay with Obama for voting in favor of building a 700- mile fence along portions of the U.S. -Mexico border. These votes, we should point out, adhere to Obama's principles: They affirm his call for earned citizenship and tightened border security.

Even though his principles and voting record often align with those of the CCIR, his rhetoric looks like that of President Bush. For example, Bush (2007) spoke about earned citizenship in an address in Yuma, Arizona:

Illegal immigrants have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, pay their taxes, learn the English language, and show that they've worked in a job for a number of years. People who meet a reasonable number of conditions and pay a penalty of time and money should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic.




In general, Bush, Obama, and moderate conservatives all advocate similar principles, but the emphases and concepts they use differ. Obama' s rhetoric on immigration is closer to that of Bush than other progressive organizations. Both use the image of the porous border and refer to "our southern border." They also use the concept of assimilation and advocate civics and language classes for undocumented immigrants.

The three basic themes that frame Obama' s proposed solution - border security, employer accountability, and earned citizenship - resonate with traditional conservative and liberal concerns. Perhaps more surprising, though, is the way in which he borrows such classic motifs from both sides to articulate an alternative vision for immigration in the United States. Obama's embrace of what can be identified as conservative rhetoric, though used in justifying a more liberal policy agenda, raises a number of questions. Is this another example, as Robinson pointed out, of Obama engag- ing in a "both . . . and" rather than an "either . . . or" policy agenda? Or is this a novel conceptualization of immigration policy? And finally, is Obama "Bush light"?

Senator Obama states that President Bush has "pretty good" impulses on immigration reform and that what Bush "could do right is to move his party closer to his position" on immigration reform (Obama, 2007). Both the senator and the president call for "comprehensive immigration reform." They incorporate increased border security, using employer sanctions, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers in the United States.

Gauging Public Support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

How will Senator Obama's support of comprehensive immigration reform affect his chances of being elected president? This question is difficult to answer given the wide variety of research findings about voter perceptions of immigration and the possibilities for immigration reform. In general, voters see immigration as being a major issue during the next election, but not nec- essarily a deciding factor in choosing a candidate. A survey conducted by The Tarrance Group (2005) for the National Immigration Forum showed that 30% of likely voters would not vote for a candidate who held an opposing view on immigration reform.7 However, when asked what were the main issues they worried about, only 5% of registered voters listed immigration.8 The majority




listed the economy and jobs, 22%, followed by education and national security, with 10% each. Perhaps more significantly, a number of polls have indi- cated that voters widely support border security, but are sharply divided over creating a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

Senator Obama's campaign plays well into this landscape of voters' concerns. On his official campaign Web site (Obama, n.d.), immigration is not listed under the issues menu. Rather, Obama emphasizes national security and ending the war in Iraq, education, health care, and energy. In his stump speeches, Obama does not dwell on immigration reform but rather emphasizes creating opportunity and ensuring that equality undergirds the foundation for that opportunity (see, e.g., Obama, 2006a, p. 268). When the senator does talk about immigration reform, such as during a speech at the University of New Hampshire (Obama, 2007), he pays equal attention to national security and creating a path to citizenship. He also stresses that the path to citizenship is not an amnesty program but rather involves a lengthy process in which immigrants earn citizenship.

What can we learn from polls on attitudes toward immigration and immigration reform? To be sure, both proponents and opponents of comprehensive immigration reform cite surveys to underscore that the public supports their respective positions. From a social science viewpoint, many of the opinion polls either conducted for or cited by specific organizations, such as FAIR and the National Immigration Forum, are methodologically weak. The problems include asking leading questions, not having even scales or middle points for responses, assuming knowledge of and baselines for immigration issues among respondents, and educating about immigration issues while at the same time surveying attitudes. These surveys are useful only if interpreted carefully.

These surveys demonstrate the importance of how immigration is framed in shaping attitudes. For example, a survey conducted by The Polling Company and Women Trend9 framed the issue of immigration around out-of-control population growth (Center for Immigration Studies, n.d.-c). The survey asked voters how their quality of life would be affected if their communities grew by the one third that is expected under current immigration rates. When the issue was framed as a population growth problem, the great majority of voters expressed deep reservations. According to the survey, 1 in 6 Latino/as, 1 in 9 Blacks, and 1 in 9.5 Whites said that immigration would cause more congestion, overcrowding, and pollution. Clearly, framing the immigration debate in terms of population growth can be a useful tool for those in favor of ending, or severely limiting, both legal and illegal immigration. Such general questions about population growth,




however, do not have respondents reply to issues such as a declining U.S. birthrate, future labor needs, and the aging of the U.S. population.

In contrast, the poll conducted by The Tarrance Group (2005) for the National Immigration Forum (see note 7) showed that voters overwhelm- ingly support comprehensive immigration reform, including the creation of a path to citizenship. The poll asked questions about current immigration legislation by explaining different aspects of earned citizenship, including a long description of specific proposals for comprehensive immigration reform. According to the survey, 62% of likely voters were in favor of providing "newly registered workers with a multi-year process for legal residency and eventual citizenship." This poll, however, does not so much demonstrate general support for comprehensive immigration reform as it shows that once voters are presented with the specifics of comprehensive immigration reform, they respond favorably to the concept of earned citizenship.

When addressing immigration issues, such as at the University of New Hampshire, Senator Obama (2007) frames immigration reform in terms of national security, the rule of law, and fairness. We find that the challenge for Senator Obama, and for other advocates of comprehensive immigration reform, will be to hold together this package of concerns.

Indeed, the senator is a powerful spokesperson for earned citizenship. Convincing Congress of the importance of maintaining a comprehensive approach to immigration will require such strong spokespersons. In supporting the McCain-Kennedy bill to "improve border security and immigration" (Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, 2005), Senator Obama proved himself to be an able sponsor and advocate for the bill. The bill stumbled over its provision for earned citizenship, with some in Congress arguing that undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave the country for a year before applying for citizenship. Since then, a number of bills have been introduced in Congress that call for tightening border security and registration programs for undocumented immigrants. They do not create a path to citizenship. Currently, three immigration bills are pending in the Senate and three in the House. Senate Bill 330, introduced by Senator John Isakson of Georgia in January 2007, contains many of the elements of the 2005 McCain-Kennedy bill without providing a path to citizenship (A Bill to Authorize Secure Borders, 2007). Senator Obama neither sponsored nor took an active role in debating these bills, which have not come up for votes. In all cases, the notion of earned citizenship no longer appears to be a priority.




Conclusion

For Senator Obama, comprehensive immigration reform - border security, employer accountability, and earned citizenship - remains a priority. The legislation he cointroduced in 2005 incorporated all three elements. Present pending legislation, on one hand, includes measures to increase border security and employer accountability. That same legislation, on the other hand, excludes earned citizenship. In this present legislation exclud- ing earned citizenship, Obama's public role has been passive. Obama's pas- sivity in relation to championing this bill does not surprise us, because a constant we see in Obama's active work is a drive toward comprehensive change, change that is "both . . . and."

In earlier segments of our essay, when we spoke of Obama's political stances, we highlighted the ways in which he tacks back and forth. We see him, for example, identify with the CCIR and with ultraconservative groups. Obama's agility can be observed in taking up multiple voices and tracking a course for comprehensive change. Again, Obama appears to be doing more than merely mimicking other people's voices. His adeptness can be traced in his ability to empathize with these voices, speak their language, and then build a more holistic vision.

For example, consider the quotations below from Obama's (2006a) book, in which he assumes the voices of a nativist and of a humanitarian:

And if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with a guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration, (p. 266)

We have a right and a duty to protect our borders. We can insist to those already here that with citizenship come obligations - to a common language, common loyalties, a common purpose, a common destiny. But ultimately the danger to our way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of Cristina and her family - if we withhold from them the rights and opportunities that we take for granted, and tolerate the hypocrisy of a servant class in our midst; or more broadly, if we stand idly by as America continues to become increasingly unequal, an inequality that tracks racial lines and therefore feeds racial strife and which, as the country becomes more black and brown, neither our democracy nor our economy can long withstand, (p. 268)




Here we witness Obama empathizing with two perspectives (nativist and humanitarian) that in political rhetoric are often presented in opposition, but in real life, many of us feel just these complex and contradictory sentiments. Not being able to understand one's mechanic is frustrating, but allowing that frustration to translate into political rage is equally ill suited to enhancing our economy and activating our democracy.

Notes 1. He incorporates, for example, "the American dream" into the title of his bestseller The

Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Obama, 2006a). 2. We use the term ultraconservative instead of neoconservative because the immigration

debate cuts across the Right, with some identified as neoconservative who support comprehensive immigration reform.

3. The 1-69 corridor is a proposed extension of 1-69, which presently connects Port Huron, Michigan, with Indianapolis, Indiana. When complete, 1-69 will cross the United States from the Canadian border at Port Huron to the Mexican border in southeastern Texas. Additional sections of 1-69 have been completed in Indiana and Mississippl. The completed 1-69 is sometimes referred to as the "NAFTA superhighway."

4. DeSipio and de la Garza (1998) discussed this "proimmigrant, low-immigration" view to show that "immigrants earn greater popular respect than does immigration" (p. 128). Their study also demonstrated the national-origin underpinnings of perceptions toward immigrants, with a much more favorable view of Asian and European immigration.

5. The national organizations include the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; the Asian American Justice Center; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Community Change; the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform; the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium; the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the National Immigration Law Center; the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the United Farm Workers of America; UNITE HERE; the United Methodist Church; and the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops.

The state- and local-level organizations include the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; the Denver Area Labor Federation; El Centro, Inc.; Kansas El Pueblo, Inc.; North Carolina Hate Free Zone; the Washington Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Committee; the National Capital Area Immigration Coalition; the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest; the New York Immigration Coalition; New York Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United)/CAUSA; the SEIU Florida Healthcare Union; Florida SEIU 32BJ; the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC); Tennessee UNITE HERE; Local 226 Las Vegas UNITE HERE; and the New Jersey State Council.

6. See Doherty (2007) for an explanation of this issue.




7. The survey, conducted March 20 to 22, 2005, had a 3.5% margin of error and repre- sented 800 registered, "likely" voters.

8. Respondents were asked, "Please tell me which one of these you personally worry about most." The list included the economy and jobs, education, national security, the situation in Iraq, taxes, social security, health care, moral values, crime and drugs, and immigration.

9. The survey was conducted September 18 to 24, 2006, and included 1,000 likely voters.

References

Buchanan, P. (2006). PJB quotes: Cogitations, musings and more from Pat Buchanan. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://buchanan.org/blog/?page_id=3

Buchanan, P. (2007, April 18). Video: Pat Buchanan: Minutemen are American heroes [Video]. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=718

Bush, G. W. (2007). President Bush discusses comprehensive immigration reform in Yuma, Arizona. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/ 04/20070409-12.html

Center for Immigration Studies, (n.d.-a). About the Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved April 10, 2007, http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html

Center for Immigration Studies, (n.d.-b). Assimilation & citizenship. Retrieved from http://www. cis.org/topics/assimilation.html

Center for Immigration Studies, (n.d.-c). New poll: Immigration key in contested races. Available at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/survey/national.html

Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. (2005, January). Comprehensive reform of our immigration laws. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.cirnow.org/content/en/ legislation_cir_backgrounder.htm

DeSipio, L., & de la Garza, R. (1998). Making Americans, remaking America: Immigration and immigrant policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Doherty, C. (2007). The immigration divide: Reform is a potential wedge issue for both Republicans and Democrats. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/ 450/immigration-wedgeissue

Federation for American Immigration Reform, (n.d.-a). An immigration reform agenda for the 110th Congress prepared by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=leg_110_reform_agenda

Federation for American Immigration Reform, (n.d.-b). 7 principles of comprehensive immigration reform. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer? pagename=research_research3327

Flores, W., & Benmayor, R. (Eds.). (1997). Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space and rights. Boston: Beacon.

Martinez, M. (2005, December 15). Martinez and Obama urge comprehensive and realistic immigration reform. Retrieved from http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressReleases.View&ContentRecordJd=2244&RegionJd=0&Issue_id=0& CFID=7321 133&CFTOKEN=22594452

Obama, B. (2006a). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York: Crown.

Obama, B. (2006b). Floor statement of Senator Barack Obama on immigration reform. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-floor_statement_ of_senator_barack_obama_on_immigration_reform/index.html




Obama, B. (2006c, May 25). Obama statement on Senate passage of immigration reform bill. Retrieved from http://obama.senate.gov/press/060525-obama_statement_on_senate_ passage_of_immigration_reform_bill/index.html

Obama, B. (2006d). Transcript of interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. New York: ABC News.

Obama, B. (2006e, March 30). Transcript of press conference with Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, McCain, Feinstein, Martinez, and Obama on immigration reform. Washington, DC: Federal News Service.

Obama, B. (2007, February 13). Barack Obama UNH meeting immigration [Video]. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZdEJdh8ss

Obama, B. (n.d.) Obama '08. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.barackobama.com Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press. Rodriguez, A. S. (2007). Statement by UFW president Arturo S. Rodriguez on the introduction

of comprehensive immigration reform legislation for 2007. Retrieved from http://www .ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=news_press&b_no=2646&page=l&field=&ke y=&n=462

Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon. Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, S. 1033, 109th Cong. (2005). Secure Borders and Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, S. 330, 110th Cong. (2007). The Tarrance Group. (2005). A national survey of voter attitudes toward immigration.

Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PressRoom/ PublicOpinion/Polll 10706_Presentation.pdf

Margaret E. Dorsey earned her dual PhD in anthropology and communication and culture, with an outside minor in ethnomusicology and folklore, from Indiana University. She is a vis- iting faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Dorsey studies the growing con- vergence of politics, marketing, and cultural expression. She analyzes such issues in her recently published book Pachangas: Borderlands Music, U.S. Politics, and Transnational Marketing (University of Texas Press, 2006). Dr. Dorsey 's current projects consider the concept of "antidemocracy," as a means to investigate how neoliberal players co-opt grass-roots political formats, and explore the contributions of Tejana diva Linda Escobar, including the challenges a female performer faces in a patriarchal industry.

Miguel Diaz-Barriga is a professor of anthropology at Swarthmore College who has published widely on social movements in Latin American and Mexican and Chicana culture. He is currently working on a project, with Margaret Dorsey, on how the current national immigration debate is being articulated through Mexican American grassroots political practices in South Texas.



Documents

The Barack Obama Phenomenon || Senator Barack Obama and Immigration Reform